Each Other — Where We Are
Ecological Inheritance
If Darwin didn't rock your world, this should
by Sandra Steingraber
Published in the November/December 2009 issue of Orion magazine
http://www.orionmagazine.org:80/index.php/articles/article/5104/
"We know from lab experiments that certain chemical exposures in prenatal life can alter developmental pathways and lead to altered architecture of adult structures (such as breasts). But our current system of environmental regulation—with its narrow focus on identifying chemicals that cause mutations—does not screen for chemicals that trigger changes in development. And our current system of genetic testing—with its narrow focus on identifying carriers of certain genes that bestow notably higher cancer risks—does not consider the regulation of genes by environmentally mediated signals either."
"Perhaps most astonishing of all, epigenetic changes can be inherited. This means that the environmental exposures we experienced as children can have consequences not just for us but also for our descendants. More philosophically, it means that, contrary to current biological dogma, the nineteenth-century idea that acquired traits can be passed down the generations may not be so wrong-headed after all. And this brings us back to Darwin, who developed his ideas before we had a working understanding of genes and who was agnostic on the subject of the heritability of acquired characteristics. The reality of epigenetic inheritance hardly overturns natural selection—indeed it shows us another route by which species can adapt. Finally, it shines a spotlight on one of Darwin’s lesser-appreciated insights: that all of life is interrelated—not only by our common origins but also by our common ecology."
Steingraer is too kind. Lamarck was laughed out of court for saying this. But Darwin had the name and influencial backers.
"Can environmentally induced or acquired changes in organisms be transmitted to future generations? Does the inheritance of acquired characteristics--if it occurs at all--play a significant role in evolution? These questions were the subject of heated scientific and political controversy until as recently as the 1960s, when the decisive successes of classical genetics submerged this debate. If asked, most biologists today would say that inheritance of acquired characteristics never occurs. Yet there are actually numerous well-documented examples of the phenomenon, and I believe it has played a major role in speeding up evolution."
Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics; March 1993; Scientific American Magazine; by Otto E. Landman; 1 Page(s)
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=2D40FE07-49EA-4A19-840A-475A8B20456
This is exactly why so many of us claim that genetically modified food is and has always been risky. Furthermore, if it does in the end cause deathly problems, it will be terribly difficult to trace the problem back to the source. This is also why Monsanto and associates fight so hard to keep themselves on the gravy train and us ignorant.
Friday, 4 December 2009
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
What is there not to believe
From The Times
December 1, 2009
‘Nations will vanish and millions lose their homes to rising seas’
Hannah Devlin
http://www.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/news/environment/article6938378.ece
"A rise in sea levels of 1.4m predicted today in a major climate report would result in the loss of entire nations and the displacement of about ten per cent of the world’s population, according to scientists.
The scenario described in the latest report of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
http://www.scar.org/
would leave tropical islands such as the Maldives and Tuvalu submerged and result in the loss of large parts of Bangladesh and the Indian Ocean Coast.
In Britain, billions of pounds would have to be spent to protect low-lying cities such as London from being inundated from flood surges that could be even more extreme than the average increase.
'Once set in motion, sea-level rise is impossible to stop. The only chance we have to limit sea-level rise to manageable levels is to reduce emissions very quickly, early in this century. Later it will be too late to do much,' said Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, on whose research the 1.4m figure was based.
Vast swaths of the Fenlands in eastern England, which are inhabited by about 385,000 people and lie just a few metres above sea level, could become flooded as the artifical drainage banks and pumps used today become unable to cope with the rising tide.
The resulting loss of argricultural land would be a major blow to British food security. Commenting last month on a climate impact report by the Met Office, David Milliband, the Foreign Secretary, warned that failing to keep global temperatures to within 2C of the present, would heighten the risk of international conflicts over water and land resources. 'We’re talking about a high pressure world in which droughts and flooding will drive mass migration,' he said.
A 1.4m rise could result in about 10 per cent of the world’s population being forcibly displaced by land loss. Coastal cities would effectively become fortified islands defended on all sides from encroaching water. Shanghai, Alexandria, Boston, New York, and Venice would all be on the brink of submersion.
This year the US estimated it would have to spend $156 billion — or about 3 per cent of its GDP — on flood defences to cope with a 1m rise."
Please forgive me for overstating the obvious, but I'm finally beginning to "get it"
So, if rising global temperatures are deemed to be just a natural occurrence and just simply a part of the interglacial period we are in or just part of something about the planet that we don't understand, then the loss of homes, land and jobs, etc. is just a, what do the insurance firms call it? "Act of God!!!" Ahhh. This explains why multinationals and governments maximally influenced by multinationals are happy to promote the "climate skeptics." Point of view and sow seeds of dissent within the populace (grin) so they won't have to retool or otherwise disrupt the flow of profits.
"Only two out of five British voters believe that climate change is real and is caused by human activity."
http://news.uk.msn.com:80/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=150868324
So two out of 5 is 40% that accept anthropogenic climate change claims.
"Almost a third, or 32%, believe that the link is not yet proved; eight percent say it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15% believe the world is not warming."
News24
http://www.news24.com/Content/SciTech/News/1132/0ae7a512e7a744ec8df9b0c10a577af1/14-11-2009-01-15/Climate_change_not_man-made
I guess I am totally out of touch with how 32% of our sample population figures things out. Or maybe a great percentage of people don't figure? Is that it? Maybe they just read the paper and say, there we are, just as I suspected, it is just a government plot to raise taxes etc. and believe it because it was "in the paper."
Can anyone help me here, seriously, I just don't know how to deal with such large numbers that appear to me to ignore common sense.
Why do I say this?
Well, let's see.
(1) Everyone knows that trees suck up carbon and everyone knows that hundreds of forests, large and small have been chopped for man made materials such as sailing ships, forts, houses, wood chips etc. As we sit today, millions of trees are still being chopped from the existing rain forests.
(2) The oceans are the major absorber of atmospheric CO2. Everyone knows what happens when a carbonated drink is warmed. Who hasn't opened a warm soft drink or beer?
Our oceans are warming and simply cannot hold as much CO2.
Simple, easy to imagine and visualise.
(3) Our human population is on about a 45 degree angle of increase as shown by any graph or might I suggest all graphs on the subject. These people, as they can afford, use petrol, oil, coal, natural gas don't they? Have I said anything controversial or speculative here yet? Yes, No?
(4) That scientific research has revealed an increase of CO2 since the industrial revolution is undisputable. The co-relation is obvious, isn't it? Where have I gone astray?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, eats like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. How else do you decide that a duck is a duck?
Well then what is there not to believe?
The glaciers are melting, the artic and antartic ice is melting, and thus the oceans are rising. Whether humans are causing it or not, it is happening and we either pay now or pay more later.
Who disagrees with that and why please?
When the hundreds of thousands are homeless and starving, how much of our meadowland, parkland, woods, places of outstanding natural beauty etc. will be covered in asphalt, housing, and corn? Is this what we want for our grandchildren and great grandchildren?
We are already consuming more than the planet can supply sustainably.
I am sorry, but swapping tungsten light bulbs for long life bulbs that pop in 3 months and cannot be thrown in the rubbish is just NOT the answer.
December 1, 2009
‘Nations will vanish and millions lose their homes to rising seas’
Hannah Devlin
http://www.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/news/environment/article6938378.ece
"A rise in sea levels of 1.4m predicted today in a major climate report would result in the loss of entire nations and the displacement of about ten per cent of the world’s population, according to scientists.
The scenario described in the latest report of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
http://www.scar.org/
would leave tropical islands such as the Maldives and Tuvalu submerged and result in the loss of large parts of Bangladesh and the Indian Ocean Coast.
In Britain, billions of pounds would have to be spent to protect low-lying cities such as London from being inundated from flood surges that could be even more extreme than the average increase.
'Once set in motion, sea-level rise is impossible to stop. The only chance we have to limit sea-level rise to manageable levels is to reduce emissions very quickly, early in this century. Later it will be too late to do much,' said Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, on whose research the 1.4m figure was based.
Vast swaths of the Fenlands in eastern England, which are inhabited by about 385,000 people and lie just a few metres above sea level, could become flooded as the artifical drainage banks and pumps used today become unable to cope with the rising tide.
The resulting loss of argricultural land would be a major blow to British food security. Commenting last month on a climate impact report by the Met Office, David Milliband, the Foreign Secretary, warned that failing to keep global temperatures to within 2C of the present, would heighten the risk of international conflicts over water and land resources. 'We’re talking about a high pressure world in which droughts and flooding will drive mass migration,' he said.
A 1.4m rise could result in about 10 per cent of the world’s population being forcibly displaced by land loss. Coastal cities would effectively become fortified islands defended on all sides from encroaching water. Shanghai, Alexandria, Boston, New York, and Venice would all be on the brink of submersion.
This year the US estimated it would have to spend $156 billion — or about 3 per cent of its GDP — on flood defences to cope with a 1m rise."
Please forgive me for overstating the obvious, but I'm finally beginning to "get it"
So, if rising global temperatures are deemed to be just a natural occurrence and just simply a part of the interglacial period we are in or just part of something about the planet that we don't understand, then the loss of homes, land and jobs, etc. is just a, what do the insurance firms call it? "Act of God!!!" Ahhh. This explains why multinationals and governments maximally influenced by multinationals are happy to promote the "climate skeptics." Point of view and sow seeds of dissent within the populace (grin) so they won't have to retool or otherwise disrupt the flow of profits.
"Only two out of five British voters believe that climate change is real and is caused by human activity."
http://news.uk.msn.com:80/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=150868324
So two out of 5 is 40% that accept anthropogenic climate change claims.
"Almost a third, or 32%, believe that the link is not yet proved; eight percent say it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15% believe the world is not warming."
News24
http://www.news24.com/Content/SciTech/News/1132/0ae7a512e7a744ec8df9b0c10a577af1/14-11-2009-01-15/Climate_change_not_man-made
I guess I am totally out of touch with how 32% of our sample population figures things out. Or maybe a great percentage of people don't figure? Is that it? Maybe they just read the paper and say, there we are, just as I suspected, it is just a government plot to raise taxes etc. and believe it because it was "in the paper."
Can anyone help me here, seriously, I just don't know how to deal with such large numbers that appear to me to ignore common sense.
Why do I say this?
Well, let's see.
(1) Everyone knows that trees suck up carbon and everyone knows that hundreds of forests, large and small have been chopped for man made materials such as sailing ships, forts, houses, wood chips etc. As we sit today, millions of trees are still being chopped from the existing rain forests.
(2) The oceans are the major absorber of atmospheric CO2. Everyone knows what happens when a carbonated drink is warmed. Who hasn't opened a warm soft drink or beer?
Our oceans are warming and simply cannot hold as much CO2.
Simple, easy to imagine and visualise.
(3) Our human population is on about a 45 degree angle of increase as shown by any graph or might I suggest all graphs on the subject. These people, as they can afford, use petrol, oil, coal, natural gas don't they? Have I said anything controversial or speculative here yet? Yes, No?
(4) That scientific research has revealed an increase of CO2 since the industrial revolution is undisputable. The co-relation is obvious, isn't it? Where have I gone astray?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, eats like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. How else do you decide that a duck is a duck?
Well then what is there not to believe?
The glaciers are melting, the artic and antartic ice is melting, and thus the oceans are rising. Whether humans are causing it or not, it is happening and we either pay now or pay more later.
Who disagrees with that and why please?
When the hundreds of thousands are homeless and starving, how much of our meadowland, parkland, woods, places of outstanding natural beauty etc. will be covered in asphalt, housing, and corn? Is this what we want for our grandchildren and great grandchildren?
We are already consuming more than the planet can supply sustainably.
I am sorry, but swapping tungsten light bulbs for long life bulbs that pop in 3 months and cannot be thrown in the rubbish is just NOT the answer.
Sunday, 29 November 2009
Illegal logging in Siberia
By Alfonso Daniels
BBC News, Dalnerechensk, Russia
"Wagons brimming with logs accumulate in the Siberian railway station of Dalnerechensk, more than 8,000km (4,971 miles) east of Moscow. They are waiting to cross the nearby Chinese border.Once in China, they will be processed and used for construction or turned into garden furniture and other products to be sold in European and US shops.More than a third of all Russian logs are smuggled by mafias, a practice that doubled between 2005 and 2007, according to official figures.
It is a huge business. China imports nearly six out of 10 logs produced in the world, after banning logging in its own territory following devastating floods a decade ago.
In total, 10m cubic metres of wood, equivalent to nearly a third of all logging in the Amazon, is harvested every year from Russian soil.This fuels a massive illegal business that threatens to destroy the largest forest on the planet in 20 to 30 years, according to Forest Trends, an international consortium of industry and conservation groups.
"“ My boss has a guy who shuts up anyone creating problems or speaking too much ”"Yevgeni", illegal logger"
Alexander Vitrik, a local senior inspector, says that in the few cases where someone is arrested, pressure to stop trials is huge from the top levels of government."'I can't give names, but they're protected by very influential people,' he says.
Mr Vitrik admits that corruption among inspectors is rife, but declines to go into detail.Despite these problems, some inspectors vow to keep on fighting.""'Since March, I've only been given 600 litres of gas to patrol seven million hectares,' he says.""Mr Samoilenko says those behind the illegal logging set fire to his car and then tried to burn down his parents' house, but failed.
His colleague Anatoly Kabaniets, sitting in the driver's seat, smiles when hearing this: 'All this small stuff doesn't perturb us.
My son worked as an inspector and was murdered, but we'll never give up.'"
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/8376206.stm
As I remember, Japan is also saving their forests and buying in. I saw recently that China is planting millions of trees. This is truly having your cake and eating it too.
BBC News, Dalnerechensk, Russia
"Wagons brimming with logs accumulate in the Siberian railway station of Dalnerechensk, more than 8,000km (4,971 miles) east of Moscow. They are waiting to cross the nearby Chinese border.Once in China, they will be processed and used for construction or turned into garden furniture and other products to be sold in European and US shops.More than a third of all Russian logs are smuggled by mafias, a practice that doubled between 2005 and 2007, according to official figures.
It is a huge business. China imports nearly six out of 10 logs produced in the world, after banning logging in its own territory following devastating floods a decade ago.
In total, 10m cubic metres of wood, equivalent to nearly a third of all logging in the Amazon, is harvested every year from Russian soil.This fuels a massive illegal business that threatens to destroy the largest forest on the planet in 20 to 30 years, according to Forest Trends, an international consortium of industry and conservation groups.
"“ My boss has a guy who shuts up anyone creating problems or speaking too much ”"Yevgeni", illegal logger"
Alexander Vitrik, a local senior inspector, says that in the few cases where someone is arrested, pressure to stop trials is huge from the top levels of government."'I can't give names, but they're protected by very influential people,' he says.
Mr Vitrik admits that corruption among inspectors is rife, but declines to go into detail.Despite these problems, some inspectors vow to keep on fighting.""'Since March, I've only been given 600 litres of gas to patrol seven million hectares,' he says.""Mr Samoilenko says those behind the illegal logging set fire to his car and then tried to burn down his parents' house, but failed.
His colleague Anatoly Kabaniets, sitting in the driver's seat, smiles when hearing this: 'All this small stuff doesn't perturb us.
My son worked as an inspector and was murdered, but we'll never give up.'"
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/8376206.stm
As I remember, Japan is also saving their forests and buying in. I saw recently that China is planting millions of trees. This is truly having your cake and eating it too.
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Fighting "superweeds" created by GM crops
"War of words over weeds could modify the verdict on GM crops"American farmers are having to spend more and more money and chemicals fighting "superweeds" created by the rush into genetically modified crops, according to a new report which promises to re-ignite the debate over GM. It claims that, far from reducing pesticide use, as promised, GM crops are requiring much more – because the saving on insecticide use is outweighed by extra herbicides being thrown at the weeds. The cost of weed control in the southern states is approaching the point where it will wipe out the benefit of extra yields from GM seeds and the problem is moving north says the report, which was published last week by The Organic Center in Boulder, Colorado. The report is authored by The Organic Center’s chief scientist and agricultural economist Charles Benbrook, a former US government adviser. He will be presenting his findings in Brussels and London early in December. Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, which will host Dr Benbrook's visit to Westminster on December 3, said yesterday: 'This is very significant research and a major blow to attempts to revive GM crops in England.'"http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk:80/features/War-of-words-over-weeds....
This fact has been proposed over and over again for the last 15 + years here in the uk, long before the US even knew that GM seeds were being planted. It was the the UK that awakended the US to what was happening to them. We cannot be wrong mainly because our warnings are backed by the latest research and experience, now being felt and collected as above, that plants do evolve and adapt much more quickly than animals.Actually, I may have spoken in error. Perhaps we humans do adapt much more quickly than research shows. Our reaction to antibiotics has been very quick. Maybe we have much more to learn about how we work???
What do you think?
This fact has been proposed over and over again for the last 15 + years here in the uk, long before the US even knew that GM seeds were being planted. It was the the UK that awakended the US to what was happening to them. We cannot be wrong mainly because our warnings are backed by the latest research and experience, now being felt and collected as above, that plants do evolve and adapt much more quickly than animals.Actually, I may have spoken in error. Perhaps we humans do adapt much more quickly than research shows. Our reaction to antibiotics has been very quick. Maybe we have much more to learn about how we work???
What do you think?
Friday, 6 November 2009
Carbon credits for cutting down rainforest and farming no-dig
GM Watch
SOUTH AMERICAN GM SOY CLOSE TO GET CARBON CREDITS-AGRIBUSINESS LOBBY IN THE CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS
Javiera Rulli
La Soja Mata, September 2009
http://lasojamata.org/es/node/397
Nice work if you can get it! Encourage people to chop trees and replace them with soy beans. Then sell them expensive GM seed and qualify for carbon credits because the farmers are using a bit of no-till. Of course with the lack of clay and miniscule humus layer, why turn over mostly subsoil?
That's like selling ciggies to kids and then getting a subsidy because the package encourages them not to throw their butts down on the ground.
There seems to be no limits to the absurd and exploititive schemes multinationals such as Monsanto will hatch. And which governments resist? Next thing we hear will be how successful, thus the implication of rightiousness, GM must be coupled with sales figures.
U.S.: KILLER PIGWEED THREATENS CROPS IN THE SOUTH
"Glyphosate (Roundup)-resistant pigweed is choking more than a million acres of cotton and soybeans in America's South, according to a report by ABC News. In the last three months, Jim Hubbard of Double H Farms has spent more than $500,000 fighting the pigweeds, and they still won't die."
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11561:killer-pig-weeds-threaten-crops-in-the-south
http://bit.ly/kiGsL
Will this news reach the South Americans? I don't think so.
"As the UN Climate Change Conference 2009 (COP15) gets closer, a new agreement has to be signed for the period after 2012.It is becoming clear how agribusiness attempts to gain profits from the massive carbon credits market. Under the term "Conservation Agriculture", Monsanto and other biotech allies have penetrated the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aiming to get carbon credits for agribusiness. A voluntary 'responsible' label for Roundup Ready soy sponsored by World Wild Life Fund (WWF), and a newly approved Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) methodology are important steps for Agribusiness to get access to this three billion dollar business.
Proposals to include agriculture in carbon offsetting focus on changes in tillage practices and reductions in methane and nitrous oxide emissions. All these practices are included in the concept of "Conservation Agriculture", which is based on three principles: minimal soil disturbance, permanent soil cover and crop rotations . However, in the name of Conservation Agriculture and with the explicit consent of FAO and UNFCCC, very different agricultural methods are included. Under this label a range of systems from biological agriculture to No-till GM industrial agriculture can be labelled as sustainable and so receive carbon credits.
For agribusiness, the combination of RR soybean and No-till is an economical success. When glyphosate is sprayed on soy monoculture, all plants die except the GM soy, which significantly simplifies the job of weed control. Mechanical weeding (with the use of ploughs) is substituted by chemical weeding. No-till makes herbicide use indispensable for the weeding; in this sense the best way to name it would be 'Chemical No-till'. The combination of RR soy monocultures and No-till has lead to an overall exponential increase of pesticide use and millions of dollars of profit for seed and chemical companies. The production scale has increased to monocultures of thousands of hectares, with a minimal labour requirement of only 2 people per 1000 hectares, basing all pest management on pesticide spraying machines and airplanes.
The expansion of RR soybean crops is causing massive contamination because of the intensive pesticide use. This leads not only to biodiversity loss, but in countries like Argentina and Paraguay, also people are being exposed to live under "chemical war" conditions. Studies in Argentina and Paraguay demonstrate higher malformations rates in areas of soy production ."
For more information:
javierarulli()yahoo.com
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11563-monsanto-penetrating-carbon-credit-mechanism
SOUTH AMERICAN GM SOY CLOSE TO GET CARBON CREDITS-AGRIBUSINESS LOBBY IN THE CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS
Javiera Rulli
La Soja Mata, September 2009
http://lasojamata.org/es/node/397
Nice work if you can get it! Encourage people to chop trees and replace them with soy beans. Then sell them expensive GM seed and qualify for carbon credits because the farmers are using a bit of no-till. Of course with the lack of clay and miniscule humus layer, why turn over mostly subsoil?
That's like selling ciggies to kids and then getting a subsidy because the package encourages them not to throw their butts down on the ground.
There seems to be no limits to the absurd and exploititive schemes multinationals such as Monsanto will hatch. And which governments resist? Next thing we hear will be how successful, thus the implication of rightiousness, GM must be coupled with sales figures.
U.S.: KILLER PIGWEED THREATENS CROPS IN THE SOUTH
"Glyphosate (Roundup)-resistant pigweed is choking more than a million acres of cotton and soybeans in America's South, according to a report by ABC News. In the last three months, Jim Hubbard of Double H Farms has spent more than $500,000 fighting the pigweeds, and they still won't die."
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11561:killer-pig-weeds-threaten-crops-in-the-south
http://bit.ly/kiGsL
Will this news reach the South Americans? I don't think so.
"As the UN Climate Change Conference 2009 (COP15) gets closer, a new agreement has to be signed for the period after 2012.It is becoming clear how agribusiness attempts to gain profits from the massive carbon credits market. Under the term "Conservation Agriculture", Monsanto and other biotech allies have penetrated the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aiming to get carbon credits for agribusiness. A voluntary 'responsible' label for Roundup Ready soy sponsored by World Wild Life Fund (WWF), and a newly approved Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) methodology are important steps for Agribusiness to get access to this three billion dollar business.
Proposals to include agriculture in carbon offsetting focus on changes in tillage practices and reductions in methane and nitrous oxide emissions. All these practices are included in the concept of "Conservation Agriculture", which is based on three principles: minimal soil disturbance, permanent soil cover and crop rotations . However, in the name of Conservation Agriculture and with the explicit consent of FAO and UNFCCC, very different agricultural methods are included. Under this label a range of systems from biological agriculture to No-till GM industrial agriculture can be labelled as sustainable and so receive carbon credits.
For agribusiness, the combination of RR soybean and No-till is an economical success. When glyphosate is sprayed on soy monoculture, all plants die except the GM soy, which significantly simplifies the job of weed control. Mechanical weeding (with the use of ploughs) is substituted by chemical weeding. No-till makes herbicide use indispensable for the weeding; in this sense the best way to name it would be 'Chemical No-till'. The combination of RR soy monocultures and No-till has lead to an overall exponential increase of pesticide use and millions of dollars of profit for seed and chemical companies. The production scale has increased to monocultures of thousands of hectares, with a minimal labour requirement of only 2 people per 1000 hectares, basing all pest management on pesticide spraying machines and airplanes.
The expansion of RR soybean crops is causing massive contamination because of the intensive pesticide use. This leads not only to biodiversity loss, but in countries like Argentina and Paraguay, also people are being exposed to live under "chemical war" conditions. Studies in Argentina and Paraguay demonstrate higher malformations rates in areas of soy production ."
For more information:
javierarulli()yahoo.com
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11563-monsanto-penetrating-carbon-credit-mechanism
Climate deal unlikely this year
Climate deal 'unlikely' this year
By Richard BlackEnvironment correspondent, BBC News website, Barcelona
The UK government says it is highly unlikely that a new legally binding climate treaty can be agreed this year - and a full treaty may be a year away.Two years ago, the world's governments vowed to finalise a new treaty at next month's climate summit in Copenhagen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8345501.stm
The delegates appear to be disputing over money and who should pay. Interesting.
The have-nots who wish to exploit natural resources left over from colonialism want the rich countries to pay them for not following their example.
There is a precedent in the US and UK , for example, of paying people with resources not to use them. This is in the form of farm subsidies and payment to leave land fallow.
Rome is burning while they fiddle.
Of course there will be wining and dining regardless whether anything is decided. And, we can be sure, regardless of the hot air, the media will report significant success.
By the way, does anyone know what a "politically binding" agreement is?
Sounds like a really rare bird to me.
I would have thought 2 years was enough to knock out an agreement if the actors were really serious, of course.
This reminds me of a saying: Oh God, please grant me celibacy, but not yet.
By Richard BlackEnvironment correspondent, BBC News website, Barcelona
The UK government says it is highly unlikely that a new legally binding climate treaty can be agreed this year - and a full treaty may be a year away.Two years ago, the world's governments vowed to finalise a new treaty at next month's climate summit in Copenhagen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8345501.stm
The delegates appear to be disputing over money and who should pay. Interesting.
The have-nots who wish to exploit natural resources left over from colonialism want the rich countries to pay them for not following their example.
There is a precedent in the US and UK , for example, of paying people with resources not to use them. This is in the form of farm subsidies and payment to leave land fallow.
Rome is burning while they fiddle.
Of course there will be wining and dining regardless whether anything is decided. And, we can be sure, regardless of the hot air, the media will report significant success.
By the way, does anyone know what a "politically binding" agreement is?
Sounds like a really rare bird to me.
I would have thought 2 years was enough to knock out an agreement if the actors were really serious, of course.
This reminds me of a saying: Oh God, please grant me celibacy, but not yet.
Sunday, 1 November 2009
Population increase triggers many ills
UK population 'to rise to 71.6m'
"The population of the UK is expected to increase from 61m to 71.6m by 2033, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Just over two-thirds of the increase is expected to be related directly or indirectly to migration to the UK.
The population of pensionable age is expected to rise by 32% over the next 25 years.
If the projected increase materialises, the population will have grown at its fastest rate in a century."
BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/8318010.stm
21 October, 2009
The extremes of global warming social problems have only just begun to emerge. Yet, already, as you can see above, population shifts threaten our countryside and rural way of life. I am especially concerned because this is only the beginning. There are several factors that coalesce to make for frightening consequences. One, already DEFRA spokespersons are talking about feeding the world. Just recently I read that already we need almost double the food to feed the world. Two, as hundreds of thousands need a new homeland when their living spaces flood, they will naturally put pressure on us to absorb them. This puts tremendous pressure not only on our available housing space but on our social services. Three, economic growth and CO2 emission reduction are at cross purposes. The prevailing corporate philosophy of unending growth or die is cancer incarnate. Four, the rainforest destruction continues unabated. So what do we need to do?
One, encourage fewer births and allocate funding to assist poorer countries to eliminate the need for several children to take care of their parents; or whatever is driving the need for several children. Two, break up corporate and private practices of depriving indigenous people of the land to feed themselves. This includes a halt to the shipment of luxury, out of season food, to the West. Three, break the power of corporate political domination. Endless growth assumptions are absurd and come from the fact that corporations have the legal standing of a person but no heart or conscience. Sustainability must be substituted for the endless growth objective. Four, stop rainforest cutting everywhere and compensate those who lose financially whilst implementing a timed shift in job availability and business objectives. Make the rainforest too valuable to cut.
All four of these problem and action items can be achieved through the efforts of people around the globe acting locally to wean themselves from the corporate world trade agreements and encouraging and supporting local growth.
Now is the time to start and the Transition Town movement has the structure and is gaining the experience to lead the way.
"The population of the UK is expected to increase from 61m to 71.6m by 2033, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Just over two-thirds of the increase is expected to be related directly or indirectly to migration to the UK.
The population of pensionable age is expected to rise by 32% over the next 25 years.
If the projected increase materialises, the population will have grown at its fastest rate in a century."
BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/8318010.stm
21 October, 2009
The extremes of global warming social problems have only just begun to emerge. Yet, already, as you can see above, population shifts threaten our countryside and rural way of life. I am especially concerned because this is only the beginning. There are several factors that coalesce to make for frightening consequences. One, already DEFRA spokespersons are talking about feeding the world. Just recently I read that already we need almost double the food to feed the world. Two, as hundreds of thousands need a new homeland when their living spaces flood, they will naturally put pressure on us to absorb them. This puts tremendous pressure not only on our available housing space but on our social services. Three, economic growth and CO2 emission reduction are at cross purposes. The prevailing corporate philosophy of unending growth or die is cancer incarnate. Four, the rainforest destruction continues unabated. So what do we need to do?
One, encourage fewer births and allocate funding to assist poorer countries to eliminate the need for several children to take care of their parents; or whatever is driving the need for several children. Two, break up corporate and private practices of depriving indigenous people of the land to feed themselves. This includes a halt to the shipment of luxury, out of season food, to the West. Three, break the power of corporate political domination. Endless growth assumptions are absurd and come from the fact that corporations have the legal standing of a person but no heart or conscience. Sustainability must be substituted for the endless growth objective. Four, stop rainforest cutting everywhere and compensate those who lose financially whilst implementing a timed shift in job availability and business objectives. Make the rainforest too valuable to cut.
All four of these problem and action items can be achieved through the efforts of people around the globe acting locally to wean themselves from the corporate world trade agreements and encouraging and supporting local growth.
Now is the time to start and the Transition Town movement has the structure and is gaining the experience to lead the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)